The "e-bomb" may be used in Iraq

[Nyarlathotep]

Appologies for the pyramid quoting.

Emp, I'm not going to do your research for you. Like I stated, in several cases I showed you evidence, which you waved away. Go and search the forum if you'd wish. Otherwise wave it away as you always do. I honestly don't care, as you've already proven my point. :)

[Dunenewt]

You should take this to another thread as this si totally off topic

[emprworm]

Appologies for the pyramid quoting.

Emp, I'm not going to do your research for you. Like I stated, in several cases I showed you evidence, which you waved away. Go and search the forum if you'd wish. Otherwise wave it away as you always do. I honestly don't care, as you've already proven my point. :)

i dont research for you. if you can't bring it to me now, then its propoganda. my statement is as follows:

propoganda until shown with evidence.

all you are doing is saying (PARAPHRASE) "but i gave evidence....its out there....somewhere"

(note: that was my personal paraphrase of your remarks, not your words).

So, since you wont bring it to me now, I do dismiss it as propoganda.

difference between us. If you ask me for evidence, you wont get 4 consecutive posts of me dodging your request. you will get evidence.

[Miles]

Miles, it's not that other countries are so hate mongering I think. I think one of the issues that other countries have is the way the US government tries to "push things" and the "demanding attitude" towards other countries. Note that I put it between brackets, as I have no other way of describing it.

burning flags is hate mogering. We have worked for 12 years attempting to get the U.N. to enforce it's resolutions. We push it because if we didn't, they would sit on their butts and let other countries get away with anything.

We also "push things" because we shoulder the largest portion of the U.N.'s finances. It is about 1/3 of the total cost. The U.N. consists of 186 countries. I think this gives us some right to "push" the issues.

I believe that almost everyone thinks that something needs to be done about Iraq. The discussion I think is the way things are going right now. It seems that no matter what another country says, the US government will do whatever it likes and disregards any negativity. If they are going to disregard any negativity, why ask for something in the first place then ?

We ask for it because it is in the best interest of the world if it is somewhat united. Nor do we want to get stuck with the whole check at the end of the war.

We will, however, as it seems we always do, take the moral high road even if others won't, and YES liberating the Iraqi's and the world of the threat of Saddam Hussein is the moral thing to do. Twelve years of diplomacy has not worked.

And where I live, we have no one-sided media propoganda. This is exactly what I was talking about above. As soon as someone states something negative, it's been waved away as propoganda. Why ?

In the U.S. we get the issue from both sides debating freely and passionately. If you question this, our cable stations show the O'reily factor at the same time as Donahue. O'reily is in favor of war, and Donahue is passionately against it(and it is not waved away as propoganda). We can hear the issue from both sides. If you only hear one side, then it is propoganda, and it is no wonder your view is slanted.

[Nyarlathotep]

In the U.S. we get the issue from both sides debating freely and passionately. If you question this, our cable stations show the O'reily factor at the same time as Donahue. O'reily is in favor of war, and Donahue is passionately against it(and it is not waved away as propoganda). We can hear the issue from both sides. If you only hear one side, then it is propoganda, and it is no wonder your view is slanted.

I said that where I live we have no one sided media. Why do you insist to the idea that we have one sided media ? And therefor where do you get the idea my view is "slanted" ?

[Miles]

In the U.S. we get the issue from both sides debating freely and passionately. If you question this, our cable stations show the O'reily factor at the same time as Donahue. O'reily is in favor of war, and Donahue is passionately against it(and it is not waved away as propoganda). We can hear the issue from both sides. If you only hear one side, then it is propoganda, and it is no wonder your view is slanted.

I said that where I live we have no one sided media. Why do you insist to the idea that we have one sided media ? And therefor where do you get the idea my view is "slanted" ?

If that is the case, then that is fine. I suppose I was addressing those like Edric O. I apologize if I lumped you with him. Propoganda would be a one-sided message.

[Edric O]

As a matter of fact, we DO have a one-sided media in this issue, but not as you'd expect. All our media supports the US. With the exception of some newspapers, all the rest (including pretty much all TV channels) are licking Bush's boots.

[ordos45]

You know we were just discussing the E-Bomb as part of our debates on the Silversenshi Forums in the Issues area...some of you might like it. (Btw...rudeness is not tolerated very well. But hey if the Admin can stand me...)

http://silversenshi.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3e59296c18faffff;act=ST;f=4;t=69;st=0

(Yeah I know its a long URL that probably won't show up the whole way if you click, so copy and paste into the address bar if you wish to see it. Nice thing about those forums is...its very peaceful.)

[nemafakei]

"I think this gives us some right to "push" the issues"

So you're saying that because the US happen to have volunteered to pay for the UN's upkeep, you expect to have more say?

Were it that this practice were followed, you run the risk of having a UN in which decisions could be bought.

[zamboe]

Were it that this practice were followed, you run the risk of having a UN in which decisions could be bought.

I wouldn't call bought, but pretty much similar.

Those countries who won't support any US resolution at the Security Council, will face problems in it's diplomatic/commercial relation with the US.